Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program in Austin, Texas, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Memphis, Tennessee, Savannah, Georgia, and Seattle, Washington, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 2686)

The Children at Risk (CAR) Program was a comprehensive,
neighborhood-based strategy for preventing drug use, delinquency, and
other problem behaviors among high-risk youth living in severely
distressed neighborhoods. The goal of this research project was to
evaluate the long-term impact of the CAR program using experimental
and quasi-experimental group comparisons. Experimental comparisons of
the treatment and control groups selected within target neighborhoods
examined the impact of CAR services on individual youths and their
families. These services included intensive case management, family
services, mentoring, and incentives. Quasi-experimental comparisons
were needed in each city because control group youths in the CAR sites
were exposed to the effects of neighborhood interventions, such as
enhanced community policing and enforcement activities and some
expanded court services, and may have taken part in some of the
recreational activities after school. CAR programs in five cities --
Austin, TX, Bridgeport, CT, Memphis, TN, Seattle, WA, and Savannah, GA
-- took part in this evaluation. In the CAR target areas, juveniles
were identified by case managers who contacted schools and the courts
to identify youths known to be at risk. Random assignment to the
treatment or control group was made at the level of the family so that
siblings would be assigned to the same group. A quasi-experimental
group of juveniles who met the CAR eligibility risk requirements, but
lived in other severely distressed neighborhoods, was selected during
the second year of the evaluation in cities that continued intake of
new CAR participants into the second year. In these comparison
neighborhoods, youths eligible for the quasi-experimental sample were
identified either by CAR staff, cooperating agencies, or the staff of
the middle schools they attended. Baseline interviews with youths and
caretakers were conducted between January 1993 and May 1994, during
the month following recruitment. The end-of-program interviews were
conducted approximately two years later, between December 1994 and May
1996. The follow-up interviews with youths were conducted one year
after the program period ended, between December 1995 and May
1997. Once each year, records were collected from the police, courts,
and schools. Part 1 provides demographic data on each youth, including
age at intake, gender, ethnicity, relationship of caretaker to youth,
and youth's risk factors for poor school performance, poor school
behavior, family problems, or personal problems. Additional variables
provide information on household size, including number and type of
children in the household, and number and type of adults in the
household. Part 2 provides data from all three youth interviews
(baseline, end-of-program, and follow-up). Questions were asked about
the youth's attitudes toward school and amount of homework,
participation in various activities (school activities, team sports,
clubs or groups, other organized activities, religious services, odd
jobs or household chores), curfews and bedtimes, who assisted the
youth with various tasks, attitudes about the future, seriousness of
various problems the youth might have had over the past year and who
he or she turned to for help, number of times the youth's household
had moved, how long the youth had lived with the caretaker, various
criminal activities in the neighborhood and the youth's concerns about
victimization, opinions on various statements about the police,
occasions of skipping school and why, if the youth thought he or she
would be promoted to the next grade, would graduate from high school,
or would go to college, knowledge of children engaging in various
problem activities and if the youth was pressured to join them, and
experiences with and attitudes toward consumption of cigarettes,
alcohol, and various drugs. Three sections of the questionnaire were
completed by the youths. Section A asked questions about the youth's
attitudes toward various statements about self, life, the home
environment, rules, and norms. Section B asked questions about the
number of times that various crimes had been committed against the
youth, his or her sexual activity, number of times the youth ran away
from home, number of times he or she had committed various criminal
acts, and what weapons he or she had carried. Items in Section C
covered the youth's alcohol and drug use, and participation in drug
sales. Part 3 provides data from both caretaker interviews (baseline
and end-of-program). Questions elicited the caretaker's assessments of
the presence of various positive and negative neighborhood
characteristics, safety of the child in the neighborhood, attitudes
toward and interactions with the police, if the caretaker had been
arrested, had been on probation, or in jail, whether various crimes
had been committed against the caretaker or others in the household in
the past year, activities that the youth currently participated in,
curfews set by the caretaker, if the caretaker had visited the school
for various reasons, school performance or problems by the youth and
the youth's siblings, amount of the caretaker's involvement with
activities, clubs, and groups, the caretaker's financial, medical, and
personal problems and assistance received in the past year, if he or
she was not able to obtain help, why not, and information on the
caretaker's education, employment, income level, income sources, and
where he or she sought medical treatment for themselves or for the
youth. Two sections of the data collection instruments were completed
by the caretaker. Section A dealt with the youth's personal problems
or problems with others, and the youth's friends. Additional questions
focused on the family's interactions, rules, and norms. Section B
items asked about the caretaker's alcohol and drug use, and any
alcohol and drug use or criminal justice involvement by others in the
household older than the youth. Part 4 consists of data from schools,
police, and courts. School data include the youth's grades,
grade-point average (GPA), absentee rate, reasons for absences, and
whether the youth was promoted each school year. Data from police
records include police contacts, detentions, violent offenses,
drug-related offenses, and arrests prior to recruitment in the CAR
program and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, court contacts and charges
prior to recruitment and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, and how the
charges were disposed.

The Children at Risk (CAR) Program was a comprehensive,
neighborhood-based strategy for preventing drug use, delinquency, and
other problem behaviors among high-risk youth living in severely
distressed neighborhoods. The goal of this research project was to
evaluate the long-term impact of the CAR program using experimental
and quasi-experimental group comparisons. Experimental comparisons of
the treatment and control groups selected within target neighborhoods
examined the impact of CAR services on individual youths and their
families. These services included intensive case management, family
services, mentoring, and incentives. Quasi-experimental comparisons
were needed in each city because control group youths in the CAR sites
were exposed to the effects of neighborhood interventions, such as
enhanced community policing and enforcement activities and some
expanded court services, and may have taken part in some of the
recreational activities after school. CAR programs in five cities --
Austin, TX, Bridgeport, CT, Memphis, TN, Seattle, WA, and Savannah, GA
-- took part in this evaluation. In the CAR target areas, juveniles
were identified by case managers who contacted schools and the courts
to identify youths known to be at risk. Random assignment to the
treatment or control group was made at the level of the family so that
siblings would be assigned to the same group. A quasi-experimental
group of juveniles who met the CAR eligibility risk requirements, but
lived in other severely distressed neighborhoods, was selected during
the second year of the evaluation in cities that continued intake of
new CAR participants into the second year. In these comparison
neighborhoods, youths eligible for the quasi-experimental sample were
identified either by CAR staff, cooperating agencies, or the staff of
the middle schools they attended. Baseline interviews with youths and
caretakers were conducted between January 1993 and May 1994, during
the month following recruitment. The end-of-program interviews were
conducted approximately two years later, between December 1994 and May
1996. The follow-up interviews with youths were conducted one year
after the program period ended, between December 1995 and May
1997. Once each year, records were collected from the police, courts,
and schools. Part 1 provides demographic data on each youth, including
age at intake, gender, ethnicity, relationship of caretaker to youth,
and youth's risk factors for poor school performance, poor school
behavior, family problems, or personal problems. Additional variables
provide information on household size, including number and type of
children in the household, and number and type of adults in the
household. Part 2 provides data from all three youth interviews
(baseline, end-of-program, and follow-up). Questions were asked about
the youth's attitudes toward school and amount of homework,
participation in various activities (school activities, team sports,
clubs or groups, other organized activities, religious services, odd
jobs or household chores), curfews and bedtimes, who assisted the
youth with various tasks, attitudes about the future, seriousness of
various problems the youth might have had over the past year and who
he or she turned to for help, number of times the youth's household
had moved, how long the youth had lived with the caretaker, various
criminal activities in the neighborhood and the youth's concerns about
victimization, opinions on various statements about the police,
occasions of skipping school and why, if the youth thought he or she
would be promoted to the next grade, would graduate from high school,
or would go to college, knowledge of children engaging in various
problem activities and if the youth was pressured to join them, and
experiences with and attitudes toward consumption of cigarettes,
alcohol, and various drugs. Three sections of the questionnaire were
completed by the youths. Section A asked questions about the youth's
attitudes toward various statements about self, life, the home
environment, rules, and norms. Section B asked questions about the
number of times that various crimes had been committed against the
youth, his or her sexual activity, number of times the youth ran away
from home, number of times he or she had committed various criminal
acts, and what weapons he or she had carried. Items in Section C
covered the youth's alcohol and drug use, and participation in drug
sales. Part 3 provides data from both caretaker interviews (baseline
and end-of-program). Questions elicited the caretaker's assessments of
the presence of various positive and negative neighborhood
characteristics, safety of the child in the neighborhood, attitudes
toward and interactions with the police, if the caretaker had been
arrested, had been on probation, or in jail, whether various crimes
had been committed against the caretaker or others in the household in
the past year, activities that the youth currently participated in,
curfews set by the caretaker, if the caretaker had visited the school
for various reasons, school performance or problems by the youth and
the youth's siblings, amount of the caretaker's involvement with
activities, clubs, and groups, the caretaker's financial, medical, and
personal problems and assistance received in the past year, if he or
she was not able to obtain help, why not, and information on the
caretaker's education, employment, income level, income sources, and
where he or she sought medical treatment for themselves or for the
youth. Two sections of the data collection instruments were completed
by the caretaker. Section A dealt with the youth's personal problems
or problems with others, and the youth's friends. Additional questions
focused on the family's interactions, rules, and norms. Section B
items asked about the caretaker's alcohol and drug use, and any
alcohol and drug use or criminal justice involvement by others in the
household older than the youth. Part 4 consists of data from schools,
police, and courts. School data include the youth's grades,
grade-point average (GPA), absentee rate, reasons for absences, and
whether the youth was promoted each school year. Data from police
records include police contacts, detentions, violent offenses,
drug-related offenses, and arrests prior to recruitment in the CAR
program and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, court contacts and charges
prior to recruitment and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, and how the
charges were disposed.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Per the researchers' agreement with each site, the
data in this collection do not identify the individual sites.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
The Children at Risk (CAR) Program was a
comprehensive, neighborhood-based strategy for preventing drug use,
delinquency, and other problem behaviors among high-risk youths living
in severely distressed neighborhoods. In CAR, community agencies and
partnerships participated in integrated delivery of services to meet
the needs of youths and families with multiple problems. Because the
programs were explicitly designed to meet local needs, there was some
diversity across sites in service provision, but all CAR programs
were: (a) highly targeted on high-risk youths who lived in
narrowly-defined, relatively small geographic neighborhoods, (b)
comprehensive, with eight required service components designed to
address neighborhood, peer group, family, and individual risk factors,
(c) equipped with integrated service delivery in which justice
agencies collaborated closely with case managers and school staff to
meet the needs of the neighborhood, participating families, and the
youths, and (d) locally planned and directed, to fit the values and
cultural backgrounds of the neighborhoods. The goal of this research
project was to evaluate the long-term impact of the CAR program. The
principal research questions guiding the impact evaluation included:
(1) Did participation in CAR reduce the likelihood of problem
behaviors, especially drug use and delinquency, among high-risk
youths? (2) Did participation in CAR reduce the neighborhood, family,
peer group, and individual risk factors that predict the likelihood of
problem behaviors? (3) Did participation in CAR contribute to the
development of protective factors that help high-risk youths avoid
problem behaviors, despite the risks they face? and (4) Did the impact
of CAR vary for youths with different demographic, risk factor, or
other characteristics? Overall, the impact evaluation was designed to
test the general research hypotheses that: (a) youths receiving CAR
services would have lower rates of problems than high-risk youths who
did not receive CAR services, (b) neighborhoods, families, and youths
in CAR neighborhoods would have greater reductions in risk factors
than comparable neighborhoods, families, and youths not offered CAR
services, and (c) CAR youths and families would have higher levels of
service utilization and participation in pro-social activities than
non-CAR families and youths with comparable risk factors. In addition,
the evaluation tested the hypothesis that CAR youths would be more
likely to develop protective factors that would give them the skills,
attitudes, and values to avoid problem behaviors.

Study Design:
Tests of these hypotheses were based on
experimental and quasi-experimental group comparisons. Experimental
comparisons of the treatment and control groups selected within target
neighborhoods examined the impact of CAR services on individual youths
and their families. These services included intensive case management,
family services, mentoring, and incentives. Quasi-experimental
comparisons were needed in each city because control group youths in
the CAR sites were exposed to the effects of neighborhood
interventions, such as enhanced community policing and enforcement
activities and some expanded court services, and may have taken part
in some of the recreational activities after school. CAR programs in
five cities -- Austin, TX, Bridgeport, CT, Memphis, TN, Seattle, WA,
and Savannah, GA -- took part in this evaluation. In the CAR target
areas, juveniles were identified by case managers who contacted
schools and the courts to identify youths known to be at risk. Random
assignment to the treatment or control group was made at the level of
the family so that siblings would be assigned to the same group. A
quasi-experimental group of juveniles who met the CAR eligibility risk
requirements, but lived in other severely distressed neighborhoods,
was selected during the second year of the evaluation in cities that
continued intake of new CAR participants into the second year. In
these comparison neighborhoods, youths eligible for the
quasi-experimental sample were identified either by CAR staff,
cooperating agencies, or the staff of the middle schools they
attended. Interviewers contacted potential sample members by letter or
in person. Baseline interviews with youths and caretakers were
conducted between January 1993 and May 1994, during the month
following recruitment. The end-of-program interviews were conducted
approximately two years later, between December 1994 and May 1996. The
follow-up interviews with youths were conducted one year after the end
of the program period, between December 1995 and May 1997. Both the
youth and caretaker interviews included self-administered answer
sheets for asking sensitive questions. Once each year, records were
collected from the police and courts in each city on officially
recorded contacts. Because it was not possible to link police contacts
to court contacts, the analysis examined the pattern of contacts
separately for each type of agency. Records were collected from the
schools on grades, promotion, and percentage of scheduled days
attended. School data were collected only from the public schools.

Sample:
Cities were selected to achieve regional and ethnic
diversity and to represent cities with strong plans for implementing
the CAR model. CAR target neighborhoods were those served by the CAR
program in that city. Quasi-experimental comparison neighborhoods were
selected based on census tract information and then two adjacent
highly distressed tracts (but not the two most distressed tracts) were
selected. Youths were selected based on CAR eligibility criteria.

Data Source:

Part 1: CAR administrative records, Part 2: interviews
with youths, Part 3: interviews with caretakers, and Part 4: school,
police, and court records

Description of Variables:
Part 1 provides demographic data on each youth,
including age at intake, gender, ethnicity, relationship of caretaker
to youth, and youth's risk factors for poor school performance, poor
school behavior, family problems, or personal problems. Additional
variables provide information on household size, number and type of
children in the household, number and type of adults in the
household. Part 2 provides data from all three youth interviews
(baseline, end-of-program, and follow-up). Questions were asked about
the youth's attitudes toward school and amount of homework,
participation in various activities (school activities, team sports,
clubs or groups, other organized activities, religious services, odd
jobs or household chores), curfews and bedtimes, who assisted the
youth with various tasks, attitudes about the future, seriousness of
various problems the youth might have had over the past year and who
he or she turned to for help, number of times the youth's household
had moved, how long the youth had lived with the caretaker, various
criminal activities in the neighborhood and the youth's concern of
victimization, opinions on various statements about the police,
occasions of skipping school and why, if the youth thought he or she
would be promoted to the next grade, would graduate from high school,
or would go to college, knowledge of children engaging in various
problem activities and if the youth was pressured to join them, and
experiences with and attitudes toward consumption of cigarettes,
alcohol, and various drugs. Three sections of the questionnaires were
completed by the youths. Section A asked questions about the youth's
attitudes toward various statements about self, life, the home
environment, rules, and norms. Section B asked questions about the
number of times that various crimes had been committed against the
youth, sexual activity, number of times he or she ran away from home,
number of times the youth had committed various criminal acts, and
what weapons he or she had carried. Items in Section C asked about the
youth's alcohol and drug use, and participation in drug sales. Part 3
provides data from both caretaker interviews (baseline and
end-of-program). Questions elicited the caretaker's assessments of the
presence of various positive and negative neighborhood
characteristics, safety of the child in the neighborhood, attitudes
toward and interactions with the police, if the caretaker had been
arrested, had been on probation, or in jail, whether various crimes
had been committed against the caretaker or others in the household in
the past year, activities that their youth currently participated in,
curfews set by the caretaker, if the caretaker had visited the school
for various reasons, school performance or problems by the youth and
the youth's siblings, amount of the caretaker's involvement with
activities, clubs, and groups, the caretaker's financial, medical, or
personal problems and assistance received in the past year, if he or
she was not able to obtain help and why not, and information on the
caretaker's education, employment, income, income sources, and where
he or she sought medical treatment for themselves and the youth. Two
sections of the data collection instruments were completed by the
caretaker. Section A questions asked about the youth's personal
problems or problems with others and the youth's friends. Additional
questions focused on the family's interactions, rules, and
norms. Section B items asked about the caretaker's alcohol and drug
use and the alcohol and drug use and criminal justice involvement by
others in the household older than the youth. Part 4 consists of data
from schools, police, and courts. School data include the youth's
grades, grade-point average (GPA), absentee rate, reasons for
absences, and whether the youth was promoted each school year. Data
from police records include police contacts, detentions, violent
offenses, drug-related offenses, and arrests prior to recruitment in
the car program and in years 1-4 after recruitment, court contacts and
charges prior to recruitment and in years 1-4 after recruitment, and
how the charges were disposed. For the police and court records,
certain kinds of contacts were not included: (a) child abuse, neglect,
and dependency actions, (b) informal contacts that did not result in a
written report, and (c) contacts with police and courts in other
jurisdictions.

Response Rates:
Eighty-nine percent of parents who were
approached in Year 1 agreed to join the study. The interview response
rates for youths were 98 percent at baseline, 77 percent at the end of
the program, and 76 percent at follow-up. Caregiver response rates
were 97 percent at baseline and 78 percent at the end of the program.

Presence of Common Scales:
Several Likert-type scales were used.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release: 2000-10-16

Version History:

2006-03-30 File UG2686.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2006-03-30 File QU2686.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.

Download Statistics

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).